CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 Kandel’s name among those who remain disappeared after being held in Maharajgunj barracks in 2003.9 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that there is no record of Amrit Kandel’s arrest or detention. 7.4 The Committee reiterates its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that, frequently, the State party alone has access to the relevant information.10 It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate, in good faith, all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives, and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases in which the authors have submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence and in which further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the authors’ allegations substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 7.5 In the present case, the Committee observes that, despite the efforts made by the authors to locate Amrit Kandel, his fate and whereabouts remain unknown. The Committee observes that the authorities have denied their involvement in Amrit Kandel’s deprivation of liberty and have persistently refused to ascertain his fate or whereabouts. 7.6 In the light of the documentation submitted by the authors and corroborated by the witnesses (see paras. 2.4–2.6 and 5.2 above), the Committee considers that the State party has not provided a sufficient or concrete explanation to refute the authors’ allegations regarding Amrit Kandel’s enforced disappearance. The Committee, therefore, considers that Amrit Kandel’s deprivation of liberty, followed by the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge it and establish his fate, constitutes enforced disappearance. 7.7 The Committee recalls 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 represent continuing violations of various rights recognized in the treaty.11 7.8 The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. 12 In the present case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that it met its obligations to protect the life of Amrit Kandel while he was detained by the authorities. The Committee further recalls that States parties should take measures not only to prevent and punish deprivation of life by criminal acts, but also to prevent arbitrary killing by their own security forces.13 In these circumstances, the Committee considers that the State party has violated its obligations under article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 9 10 11 12 13 10 See “Report of investigation into arbitrary detention, torture and disappearances at Maharajgunj RNA barracks, Kathmandu, in 2003–2004”, May 2006, annex A. See Sharma and Sharma v. Nepal, para. 7.5; Sharma et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014), para. 5.3; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2184/2012), para. 11.4; Dhakal et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2185/2012), para. 11.4; Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013), para. 12.2; Maharjan et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009), para. 8.3; Tripathi v. Nepal, para. 7.2; and Katwal v. Nepal, para. 3.6. See Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal (CCPR/C/120/D/2170/2012), para. 10.5; Katwal v. Nepal, para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.5; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.5. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 58. See Abushaala et al. v. Libya (CCPR/C/107/D/1913/2009), para. 6.2; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.6; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.6. See also the Committee’s general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, para. 58. See the Committee’s general comment No. 36, paras. 7 and 13.