CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 Further submission by the author 10. On 4 September 2014, the author reiterated her earlier submissions and noted that the Committee had already declared her communication admissible. Regarding the State party’s arguments about the future establishment of the transitional justice mechanisms on the basis of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Act, the author refers to several international sources that identify drawbacks of the Act and states that a mechanism based on this Act would not meet international standards and, thus, would not offer an effective remedy. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Human Rights 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. 11.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s unrefuted allegations that Mr. Katwal disappeared when, on 13 December 2001, he went to the army barracks in Okhaldhunga, as he was convoked to do; that he was severely tortured there, according to the witnesses who saw him, seemingly unconscious and in blood-stained clothes, being carried by security personnel on the morning of 14 December 2001; that there was no information about his fate until 2007; and that during that period the authorities did not provide the author with truthful information about the whereabouts of her husband. In the absence of any other relevant information on file, the Committee considers that Mr. Katwal’s deprivation of liberty, followed by a period of refusal by the authorities to acknowledge that deprivation and by the concealment of his fate, constituted an enforced disappearance. 11.3 The Committee considers that while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represents continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty. 11.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that her husband was arrested by representatives of the State party’s armed forces and was kept incommunicado from the moment of his arrest until his alleged death; that even though he was last seen in December 2001, no ex officio investigation was carried out until 2007. The Committee also notes that the Prisoner Investigation Team established in 2006 by the Supreme Court confirmed that Mr. Katwal had been tortured by security personnel after his arrest and died in detention, as a result of this torture, on 16 December 2001. The Committee further notes that the body of Mr. Katwal was never returned to his family. 11.5 The State party has indicated that the criminal investigation in the case of Mr. Katwal is ongoing. However, the Committee notes that the State party has not provided sufficient information to confirm that there is such a criminal investigation and that it is effective. Thirteen years after the events in the present case, the circumstances of Mr. Katwal’s death have not been fully clarified and the perpetrators have not been held accountable, although they were supposedly identified in the report of the Prisoner Investigation Team. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded that Mr. Katwal had been killed due to torture inflicted on him by army officers. The Committee thus considers that the killing of Mr. Katwal in army custody and the lack of effective investigation by the State party constitute a violation of Mr. Katwal’s right to life under article 6 of the Covenant. 11.6 The author alleges that her husband was severely tortured in detention, which was confirmed by the investigation ordered by the State party’s Supreme Court. The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on article 7, in which the 14