CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010 3.5 She further claims that the State party has violated Mr. Katwal’s rights under article 9 (1–4), of the Covenant, as from 13 December 2001 onwards he was subjected to arrest and detention at the hands of the security personnel both in the army barracks and in the District Police Office. However, there is no evidence indicating the basis for depriving him of his liberty, under which procedure, whether the reasons for his arrest were disclosed to him and if, at any stage, his deprivation of liberty was the object of judicial scrutiny of any sort. 3.6 The author points out that prolonged isolation and deprivation of communication 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 The Committee itself has considered that enforced disappearance per se constituted a violation of article 10 of the Covenant and that the burden of proof in this respect was incumbent on the State party.8 The author therefore considers that the enforced disappearance of her husband as well as the subsequent conditions he was subjected to following his arrest constitute a violation of article 10 of the Covenant. The lack of ex officio investigation into the matter further constitutes a violation of article 10 read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.7 The victim was arrested, detained and last seen at the hands of the army and the police of the State party. He was never brought before a judge or a judicial officer, his arrest and detention were never reviewed and he was never seen again. Mr. Katwal was thereby placed outside the protection of the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 3.8 The ruling of the Supreme Court cannot be considered an adequate remedy since the investigation ordered did not in itself live up to the standard required by article 2 of the Covenant. Even though the Supreme Court ordered proceedings to be initiated, the State party’s authorities have continuously failed to implement the ruling. No criminal investigation, prosecution or punishment of those responsible for the disappearance of Mr. Katwal has taken place. Moreover, the author has not been adequately compensated. Only taking into account the material damage suffered, the author has spent Nr 720,000 as a result of the disappearance. This amount does not take into account the mental suffering caused to her and her family, the loss of her husband’s salary and the loss of opportunities to work during the time she was engaged in searching for her husband. The author has only received Nr 300,000 from the State party authorities. As claimed above, such compensation is not considered to be adequate. 3.9 The author requests that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party should order an independent investigation as a matter of urgency with a view to locating Mr. Katwal, and exhume, identify and return his remains to the author. She also requests the State party to bring the perpetrators of the deprivation of liberty, torture and enforced disappearance of Mr. Katwal before the competent authorities for prosecution, judgement and sanction, and to disseminate publicly the results of this measure. She requests a guarantee that she will obtain integral reparation, including prompt, fair and adequate compensation.9 As a guarantee of non-repetition, the State party should amend its 7 8 9 6 The author refers to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in its judgement of 29 July 1988, Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, para. 156. The author refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 1469/2006, Sharma v. Nepal, Views adopted on 28 October 2008, para. 7.7. Additionally, the author requests that the measures of reparation cover material and moral damages and incorporate measures aimed at providing restitution, rehabilitation, satisfaction (including restoration of dignity and reputation) and guarantees of non-repetition. In particular, the author requests that the State party acknowledge its international responsibility, on the occasion of a public ceremony, in the presence of the authorities representing the State and of the author, to whom an