CCPR/C/126/D/2560/2015 his detention. He was never brought before a judge and could not challenge the legality of his detention. Moreover, Amrit Kandel’s arrest and detention have not been recorded, in violation of international guidelines on safeguards for detained persons. In the absence of a response from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that the detention of Amrit Kandel constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant, including due to the absence of records of his arrest and detention. 7.16 With regard to article 16 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the authors’ allegation that, despite the fact that Amrit Kandel was arrested and detained incommunicado by security forces (the Royal Nepalese Army), the authorities denied their involvement in his enforced disappearance. The State party failed to provide relevant information concerning Amrit Kandel’s fate. No effective investigation was carried out to ascertain his whereabouts, effectively placing him outside the protection of the law. The Committee is of the view that the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law constitutes a refusal of the right to recognition as a person before the law, in particular if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to effective remedies have been systematically impeded.15 The Committee, therefore, finds that the enforced disappearance of Amrit Kandel deprived him of the protection of the law and of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 7.17 The authors invoke article 2 (3) of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of rights violations. It refers to its general comment No. 31, which provides, inter alia, that failure by a State party to investigate allegations of violations could in and of itself give rise to a separate breach of the Covenant. In the present case, the Committee notes that Tikanath Kandel lodged a complaint on 15 October 2003 with the National Human Rights Commission with regard to both his sons’ arrest and incommunicado detention, unsuccessfully tried to register a complaint with the Royal Nepalese Army on 17 October 2003 and enquired about his sons’ whereabouts on 21 October 2003 with a distant relative who was then the Minister for Land Reform and Management. The authors also filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Supreme Court of Nepal on 30 November 2004. Despite these efforts, the State party has not undertaken an independent and thorough investigation to elucidate the circumstances surrounding Amrit Kandel’s arrest, detention and disappearance. In this regard, the Committee considers that the State party has failed to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation into the disappearance of Amrit Kandel. Additionally, the sums received by the authors as interim relief do not constitute an adequate remedy commensurate with the serious nature of the violations committed. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the facts before it reveal a violation of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 6, 7, 9 and 16 of the Covenant, with regard to Amrit Kandel and of article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 7 of the Covenant, with respect to the authors. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the information before it discloses violations by the State party of articles 6, 7, 9 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, with regard to Amrit Kandel and a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), with respect to Tikanath and Ramhari Kandel. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia: (a) to conduct a thorough and effective investigation into the facts surrounding the detention of Amrit Kandel and the treatment he suffered during detention and disappearance; (b) to provide the authors with detailed information about the results of its investigation; (c) to release Amrit Kandel if he is still alive or, should he be deceased, to hand over his remains to his family; (d) to prosecute and punish those found responsible for 15 12 See Tharu et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/114/D/2038/2011), para. 10.9; and Serna et al. v. Colombia, para. 9.5; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.10; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.10.