CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 The complaint 3.1 The author submits that the State party violated articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1–4), 10 and 16, alone and read together with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with regard to Mr. Katwal, owing to his arrest, detention, torture and enforced disappearance, and in the light of the State party’s ongoing failure to conduct an ex officio prompt, impartial, independent and thorough investigation in order to establish his fate and whereabouts, as well as to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible for these crimes. 3.2 The State’s obligation to protect the right to life includes the duty to prevent and punish arbitrary deprivation of life by criminal acts but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own law enforcement personnel. Therefore, the law must strictly control and limit the circumstances in which a person may be deprived of his life by authorities of the State.5 The victim was last seen in the hands of the authorities. In the absence of other information, the circumstances give rise to a strong presumption that State agents deprived him of his life, an element which was later acknowledged by the Supreme Court. The author therefore considers that article 6 (1) of the Covenant was violated in her husband’s regard. Moreover, the victim was last seen in December 2001 and no investigation about his disappearance was conducted until 2007. Only after the Supreme Court order based on the habeas corpus writ filed by the author’s daughter was an investigation carried out into the fate of Mr. Katwal. The State party did not therefore conduct an ex officio and prompt investigation. In addition, the investigation ordered by the Supreme Court was a judicial investigation. No criminal investigation by the police or the prosecutor was initiated. The Court limited itself to stating that the victim had died, without providing the family with information on the fate of the victim’s remains. As for the criminal responsibility of the alleged perpetrators, the investigation was confined to the enumeration of the persons responsible, but no criminal investigation or prosecution was ever initiated. The author therefore also considers that article 6, read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, has been violated regarding her husband. 3.3 The author further contends that the State party has violated the prohibition of torture in respect of Mr. Katwal. The link between secret detention and the elevated risk of torture was confirmed by the Committee in its own jurisprudence.6 The author also refers to article 17 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In the present case, all elements, including the Supreme Court’s ruling, point to the fact that Mr. Katwal was tortured. The author requests the Committee to identify the acts committed against her husband as torture and not a mere violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 3.4 The author also claims a violation of article 7, alone and read together with article 2 (3) of the Covenant with regard to herself, due to the anguish suffered by her and her family as a consequence of the enforced disappearance of her husband and the State party’s failure to provide for adequate reparations. Threats and recourse to ill-treatment and torture have been made with regard to her and her daughter, and false explanations about the disappearance have been given over a prolonged period, thus aggravating the suffering endured by the author and her family. In addition, the author was not able to perform the ceremonial burial as required by her religion. 5 6 The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life, para. 3, and the Committee’s jurisprudence in its communication No. 154/1983, Baboeram et al v. Suriname, Views adopted on 4 April 1985, para. 14.3. The author refers inter alia to communication No. 1327/2004, Grioua v. Algeria, Views adopted on 10 July 2007, para. 7.6. 5