CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011 Committee believes it likely that Toufik Ammari was arrested by the police officers on the morning of 27 August 1995 and that he disappeared while under the responsibility of the State party. 8.5 The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. It recalls its general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, which recommends that States parties should make provisions against incommunicado detention. It considers, in the case in point, that Toufik Ammari was arrested by the police officers on the morning of 27 August 1995 and that his fate is still unknown. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State party, the Committee considers that this disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to Toufik Ammari.13 8.6 In view of the above, the Committee will not consider separately the claims based on the violation of article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 8.7 The Committee also takes note of the anguish and distress caused to the author and his family by the disappearance of his son. It considers that the facts before it disclose a violation with regard to them of article 7 of the Covenant. 14 8.8 As to the alleged violation of article 9, the Committee notes the author’s claim that his son was arbitrarily arrested without a warrant, that neither he nor his family were informed of the reasons for the arrest, and that Toufik Ammari was not charged or brought before a judicial authority, which would have enabled him to challenge the lawfulness of his detention. In the absence of satisfactory explanations from the State party, the Committee finds a violation of article 9 with regard to Toufik Ammari. 15 8.9 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee reiterates its established jurisprudence, according to which the intentional removal of a person from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time may constitute a denial of his or her right to recognition as a person before the law if the victim was in the hands of the State authorities when last seen and if the efforts of his or her relatives to obtain access to potentially effective remedies, including judicial remedies (Covenant, art. 2, para. 3), have been systematically impeded.16 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not furnished any explanation concerning the fate or whereabouts of Toufik Ammari (or the location of his remains), despite the author’s multiple requests in that regard. The Committee concludes that the enforced disappearance of Toufik Ammari more than 19 years ago removed him from the protection of the law and deprived him of his right to recognition as a person before the law, in violation of article 16 of the Covenant. 8.10 The author invokes article 2, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, which imposes on States parties the obligation to ensure an effective remedy for all persons whose Covenant rights have been violated. The Committee attaches importance to the establishment by States parties of appropriate judicial and administrative mechanisms for addressing claims of 13 14 15 16 GE.14-24393 See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.5; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.5; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.5; and communication No. 1295/2004, El Alwani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 11 July 2007, para. 6.5. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.6; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.6; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.6; El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, para. 7.5; and communication No. 1422/2005, El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Views adopted on 24 October 2007, para. 6.11. See, inter alia, Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.7; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.7; and Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.7. See Mezine v. Algeria, para. 8.9; Khirani v. Algeria, para. 7.9; Berzig v. Algeria, para. 8.9; communication No. 1780/2008, Zarzi v. Algeria, Views adopted on 22 March 2011, para. 7.9; Benaziza v. Algeria, para. 9.8; Atamna v. Algeria, para. 7.8; and Madoui v. Algeria, para. 7.7. 11