CCPR/C/117/D/2164/2012 limited to the crimes listed in schedule 1 of the State Cases Act of 1992, which do not include enforced disappearance and torture. Furthermore, the filing of such reports in cases of disappearance does not constitute an appropriate remedy, as the authorities usually argue that the person’s death cannot be proved in the absence of a body. Although torture is forbidden pursuant to article 14 (4) of the Interim Constitution and section 3 (1) of the Compensation Relating to Torture Act, it has not been criminalized in national law. The Compensation Relating to Torture Act does not provide for criminal accountability but only for compensation of a maximum of Nr 100,000 and a claim must be filed within 35 days of the torture or release from detention. Despite the order of the Supreme Court in 2007 to criminalize enforced disappearance, no action has been taken in that respect. The complaint 3.1 The author argues that her husband is a victim of enforced disappearance and that the State party violated his rights under articles 6, 7, 9 (1-4), 10 (1) and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), as well as her rights under article 7, in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.2 The author’s husband was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty by the security forces on 21 May 1999 and taken to the police headquarters in Naxal, Kathmandu, where he was last seen by the author and her friend K.B. On 31 August 1999, the Mahanagar Daily published an article that reported that although the Prime Minister had announced that Mr. Nepali had been killed, he and other individuals detained by the security forces were still alive and being held at the premises of the Riot Control Police in Pokhara. Despite the fact that Mr. Nepali was last seen alive in life-threatening circumstances in the hands of agents of the State party and that his deprivation of liberty was promptly denounced by his wife, the authorities have systematically denied having arrested and detained him. His arbitrary deprivation of liberty took place within a context of massive arrests, enforced disappearances and torture of persons suspected of being Maoist. Against that background, the burden of proof rests on the State party to provide a satisfactory and convincing explanation, establishing and disclosing with certainty her husband’s fate and whereabouts. Therefore, in light of the State party’s failure to demonstrate the contrary, the author submits that her husband’s enforced disappearance as such, and subsequent most likely killing, constitute a violation by the State party of his right under article 6. 3.3 The incommunicado detention and enforced disappearance of the author’s husband per se amount to a treatment contrary to article 7. By keeping him in detention, without contact with the outside world since 21 May 1999, the authorities placed him at mercy of his captors, which resulted in a constant state of mental anguish. Further, according to the article published by Mahanagar Daily, he was a victim of torture while in detention at the premises of the Riot Control Police in Pokhara. 3.4 The author points out that prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication with the outside world are in themselves cruel and inhuman treatment, harmful to the psychological and moral integrity of the person and a violation of the right of any detainee to respect for his inherent dignity as a human being. 7 She therefore considers that in spite of scant evidence regarding the conditions in which Mr. Nepali was detained, the fact that he was kept incommunicado with no access to legal recourse or family members, constitutes a violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant. 3.5 The author’s husband was also a victim of a violation of his rights under article 9 (14). The fact that he was last seen alive at police headquarters in Kathmandu, in the context of increasing numbers of arrests of persons suspected of involvement in Communist Party 7 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgment of 29 July 1988 in the case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 156. 5