or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time. Any act of such disappearance constitutes a violation of many of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, including the right to liberty and security of the person (art. 9), the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (art. 7), and the right of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (art. 10). It also violates or constitutes a grave threat to the right to life (art. 6). information available to it. In cases where the allegations are corroborated by evidence submitted by the author and where further clarification of the cases depends on information exclusively in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations as substantiated in the absence of satisfactory evidence and explanation to the contrary submitted by the State party. 9.5 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 1, the evidence before the Committee reveals that Mr. Saker was removed from his home by State agents. The State party has not addressed the author’s claims that her husband’s arrest was made in the absence of a warrant. It has failed to indicate the legal basis on which the author’s husband was subsequently transferred to military custody. It has failed to document its assertion that he was subsequently released, even less how he was released with conditions of safety. All these considerations lead the Committee to conclude that the detention as a whole was arbitrary, nor has the State party adduced evidence that the detention of Mr. Saker was not arbitrary or illegal. The Committee concludes that, in the circumstances, there has been a violation of article 9, paragraph 1.12 9.3 With regard to the author’s claim of the disappearance of her husband, the Committee notes that the author and the State party have submitted different accounts, dates and outcome of events. While the author contends that her husband was arrested without a warrant on 29 May 1994, and according to a letter from the judicial police (referring to Decision No. 16536/96 of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Tribunal of Constantine) he was handed over to the Territorial Centre on 3 July 1994, the State party contends that Mr. Saker was arrested on 12 June 1994, handed over to the military branch of the judicial police on 15 June 1994, and released some time thereafter. The Committee also recalls that according to the National Observatory for Human Rights, the author’s husband was “kidnapped” by an unidentified military group, this according to information received from the security forces. The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the sufficiently detailed allegations exposed by the author, nor submitted any evidence such as arrest warrants, release papers, records of interrogation or detention. 9.6 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 3, the Committee recalls that the right to be brought “promptly” before a judicial authority implies that delays must not exceed a few days, and that incommunicado detention as such may violate article 9, paragraph 3.13 It takes note of the author’s argument that her husband was held incommunicado for 33 days by the judicial police before being transferred to the Territorial Centre on 3 July 1994, without any possibility of access to a lawyer during that period. It concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 9, paragraph 3. 9.7 As to the alleged violation of article 9, paragraph 4, the Committee recalls that the author’s husband had no access to counsel during his incommunicado detention, which prevented him from challenging the lawfulness of his detention during that period. In the absence of any pertinent information on this point from the State party, the Committee finds that Mr. Saker’s right to judicial review of the lawfulness of his detention (art. 9, para. 4) has also been violated. 9.4 The Committee has consistently maintained11 that the burden of proof cannot rest alone on the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to the evidence and that frequently the State party alone has access to the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violation of the Covenant made against it and its authorities and to furnish to the Committee the 9.8 The Committee notes that while specifically invoked by the author, 11 12 Communication No. 146/1983, Baboeram-Adhin and others v. Suriname, Views adopted on 4 April 1985, para. 14.2; communication No. 139/1983, Conteris v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 17 July 1985, para. 7.2; communication No. 202/1986, Graciela Ato del Avellanal v. Peru, Views adopted on 31 October 1988, para. 9.2; communication No. 30/1978, Bleier v. Uruguay, Views adopted on 29 March 1982, para. 13.3. not the Communication No. 778/1997, Coronel et al. v. Colombia, Views adopted on 24 October 2002, para. 9.4; communication No. 449/1991, Barbarín Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 10 August 1994, para. 5.4. 13 Communication No. 1128/2002, Rafael Marques de Morais v. Angola, Views adopted on 29 March 2005, para. 6.3. See also general comment No. 8 (16), para. 2. 63