CCPR/C/112/D/2086/2011 3.2 The authors emphasize that it is possible that Sahraoui Ayache died in detention, perhaps during the first night, when so many of those being held with him died. They consider that Sahraoui Ayache, who was held in an unknown location, was under the responsibility of the State party, which has a duty to guarantee the right to life of all detained persons. The fact that the State party is unable to provide any accurate or coherent information about the fate of a person under its authority indicates that it failed to take the necessary steps to protect that person during his detention, in violation of article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. The authors maintain that, given the circumstances surrounding his disappearance, if the State party does not provide conclusive evidence that their disappeared son and brother is still alive, the Committee has no alternative but to find that a violation of the right to life, guaranteed under article 6, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, has occurred.4 3.3 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 5 the authors maintain that enforced disappearance itself constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant because the abduction and disappearance of Sahraoui Ayache, who was prevented from communicating with his family and the outside world, constitute cruel and inhuman treatment. The authors emphasize that enforced disappearance is a complex crime that comprises a broad array of human rights violations and cannot simply be equated with incommunicado detention. The authors consider that incommunicado detention, in and of itself, constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant but feel that the Committee should not confine its deliberations to that aspect of the case.6 The authors recall that Sahraoui Ayache was initially detained in appalling conditions, which were responsible for the death of many persons. They consider that such conditions constitute inhuman treatment of a nature that goes far beyond a simple violation of article 10 of the Covenant as generally recognized by the Committee and constitute a separate violation of article 7 of the Covenant.7 3.4 With reference to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 8 the authors moreover consider that they are victims of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant because of the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances of Sahraoui Ayache’s disappearance and his fate, which is a source of deep and continual anxiety and suffering. The authors assert that the authorities’ denial of Sahraoui Ayache’s arrest, to which his father was an eyewitness, together with their inaction, the impunity of those responsible and the fact that, by virtue of Ordinance No. 06-01, the authors were required to attest to the death of their son and brother in order to be eligible for compensation without the circumstances of his disappearance and possible death being clarified also constitute violations of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of the authors. 4 5 6 7 8 GE.14-21909 The authors refer to the separate opinions of Mr. Fabián Omar Salvioli in this respect, particularly those included in communication No. 1780/2008, Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011 and communication No. 1588/2007, Benaziza v. Algeria, Views adopted on 26 July 2010. See communication No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; communication No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachachua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5; and communication No. 542/1993, N’Goya v. Zaire, 25 March 1996, para. 5.5. See Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.5; communication No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para.9.6; communication No. 1327/2004, Atamna v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6; communication No. 992/2001, Bousroual v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.8; and communication No. 950/2000, Sarma v. Sri Lanka, Views adopted on 16 July 2003, para. 9.3. The authors refer to communication No.188/84, Portorreal v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 5 November 1987, para. 11, in which the Committee considered that the conditions of detention involved in that case constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. See Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.6; Boucherf v. Algeria, para.9.7; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.7; Bousroual v. Algeria, para. 9.8; and Sarma v. Sri Lanka, para. 9.5. 5