CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 Ministry of Peace and Reconstruction, fact that constitutes an indirect recognition by the Government that Amrit Kandel is indeed a victim of enforced disappearance; and (e) the International Committee of the Red Cross’s database of missing persons still indicates that Amrit Kandel’s fate and whereabouts remain unknown. 5.3 In its jurisprudence, the Human Rights Committee has held that in cases of enforced disappearance 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 frequently the State party alone has access to relevant information. 4 In the light of the evidence and detailed explanations provided by the authors of the communication and the failure of the State party to rebut them by providing any evidence to the contrary, the authors request the Committee, following its established practice,5 to give due weight to their factual allegations. 5.4 The authors further assert that the lack of official records of Amrit Kandel’s arbitrary arrest and subsequent detention and disappearance amount, in and of themselves, to a violation of the rights of Amrit Kandel, as well as of the rights of Tikanath and Ramhari Kandel, as set out in their initial communication. 5.5 Moreover, the Human Rights Committee has declared that article 9 of the Covenant requires compliance with important safeguards for detained persons, such as making a record of an arrest.6 Also with respect to article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee has stated that a centralized official register should be kept of the names and places of detention, and times of arrival and departure, as well as of the names of persons responsible for their detention, and made readily available and accessible to those concerned, including relatives.7 The absence of such data should be considered a violation of the Convention. 5.6 Referring to the initial communication, Ramhari Kandel highlights that no claim has been made that he was subjected to an act of enforced disappearance. Rather, he claims a violation of his rights under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, due to the mental distress and severe anguish he continues to suffer due to Amrit Kandel’s ongoing enforced disappearance. Ramhari Kandel has suffered from depression ever since his release from Maharajgunj and he cannot get over the fact that he could not do anything significant to secure the release of his brother due to fear for his own life. 5.7 The authors reiterate their allegations that Amrit Kandel was subjected to violations of articles 6, 7, 9, 10 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, due to his arbitrary arrest, torture and enforced disappearance as well as to the ongoing failure by the Nepalese authorities to carry out an ex officio, prompt and effective, independent, impartial and thorough investigation into his disappearance and to prosecute and sanction those responsible. In addition, the authors further allege that the facts of the case disclose a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of Tikanath Kandel and Ramhari Kandel, due to the mental distress and severe anguish they both continue to suffer due to Amrit Kandel’s ongoing enforced disappearance. 5.8 The authors of the communication are aware that transitional justice mechanisms were established in February 2015, after more than nine years of negotiations. At the time of the additional submission, those mechanisms were not yet fully operational. The authors are particularly concerned that more than eight months have elapsed since the establishment of the transitional justice mechanisms, without any substantial action having been taken so far, taking into account that, as the State party informs, the mechanisms have a mandate to complete their tasks within two years of formation. Moreover, on 21 May 2015, the 4 5 6 7 Lewenhoff and Valiño de Bleier v. Uruguay (CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978), paras. 12 and 13.3; and Sharma and Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006), para. 7.5. Madoui and Madoui v. Algeria (CCPR/C/94/D/1495/2006), para. 7.6. See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 23; Kurbonov v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/86/D/1208/2003), para. 6.5; and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (General Assembly resolution 43/173, annex), principle 12. See the Committee’s general comment No. 35, para. 58. 7