CCPR/C/112/D/2098/2011 The complaint 3.1 The author believes that his son’s enforced disappearance since 27 August 1995 is attributable to the authorities of the State party and constitutes a violation of articles 7, 9, 10, 14 and 16, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant, with regard to Toufik Ammari, and of articles 7 and 14, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (para. 3) of the Covenant, with regard to the author. 3.2 According to the author, the disappearance of Toufik Ammari followed his arrest by the Bordj Bou Arréridj criminal investigation department. He cites by way of evidence the fact that a large number of officers were deployed to conduct a search of the Ammari family home in the hours after his son’s disappearance, without any explanation being provided or any search warrant produced. Moreover, the officers took away Toufik Ammari’s family civil-status book and kept it for four months, along with other documents and effects belonging to him. Finally, the author heard a rumour that Toufik Ammari had been seen some years later in detention in Sétif wilaya. 3.3 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 2 the author states that his son’s enforced disappearance constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, since the circumstances of the disappearance and the total secrecy as to Toufik Ammari’s place of detention and state of health are recognized as constituting in and of themselves a form of inhuman or degrading treatment. The author also emphasizes that prolonged incommunicado detention is conducive to the practice of torture and the infliction of inhuman or degrading treatment on the detainee and that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the disappearance of a loved one constitutes a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with regard to his or her family. 3.4 The author, who has had no information about his son’s fate since 27 August 1995, is convinced that his son was arbitrarily arrested that day by officers of the criminal investigation department, without his family, or in all likelihood Toufik Ammari himself, being informed of the reasons for his arrest. There were no legal grounds for the arrest, and his detention was not formalized or entered in the custody register. There is no official record of the arrest or the ensuing incommunicado detention. Toufik Ammari was thus deprived of all the fundamental guarantees with respect to deprivation of liberty stipulated in article 9 of the Covenant. 3.5 Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 3 the author points out that his son’s enforced disappearance and subsequent incommunicado detention constitute violations of his right to be treated with humanity and respect while deprived of liberty, as provided in article 10, paragraph 1, of the Covenant. 3.6 The author also alleges a violation of article 14 of the Covenant, as he considers that Toufik Ammari was not able to have his case heard by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Nor was he informed of the charges against him within a reasonable period. As his arrest was never acknowledged by the authorities of the State party, he was not granted any of the rights stipulated in article 14 of the Covenant, which would have allowed him to prove his innocence and obtain his release. The author believes that he himself was denied the opportunity to assert his civil rights in relation to his son’s arrest before an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. 3.7 The author further maintains that his son’s right to recognition as a person before the law was violated, since, as a disappeared person, he was deprived of the capacity to 2 3 4 Communications No. 449/1991, Mojica v. Dominican Republic, Views adopted on 15 July 1994, para. 5.7; No. 540/1993, Laureano Atachahua v. Peru, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 8.5; and No. 542/1993, N’Goya v. Zaire, Views adopted on 25 March 1996, para. 5.5. Communication No. 1196/2003, Boucherf v. Algeria, Views adopted on 30 March 2006, para. 9.2. GE.14-24393