CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 7.15 The Committee notes the author’s argument that her husband’s arbitrary detention and his subsequent enforced disappearance on both occasions amount per se to treatment contrary to article 7. The Committee recognizes the degree of suffering involved in being held indefinitely without contact with the outside world. In addition, the Committee takes note of the testimony of R.P. to whom Mr. Bolakhe said that he had been severely beaten during interrogation. The Committee takes notes of the author’s allegations that the overall conditions of detention at Gorakhnath Battalion Army camp (December 2002 to February 2003) amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The Committee notes the author’s claim that subjecting Mr. Bolakhe, before he was shot, to a four-day “search mission” in the health condition he was in, among others, amounted itself to a form of illtreatment under article 7. As the State party denies the arrest and does not provide any evidence to clarify the facts regarding Mr. Bolakhe’s treatment in detention, the Committee finds that his enforced disappearance and his treatment while in detention constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee will not examine the claims regarding the violation of article 10 (1) of the Covenant for the same facts. 7.16 The Committee notes the anguish and distress caused to the author and her family by the disappearance and extrajudicial killing of Mr. Bolakhe; the continuing uncertainty about the circumstances that led to his death; that no investigation has been carried out; and that no one has been convicted. In this regard, the Committee considers that these facts reveal a violation of article 7 of the Covenant with respect to the author and the family members on whose behalf she filed the present communication. 7.17 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation under article 9 of the Covenant that her husband was deprived of his liberty on two occasions. No arrest warrants were presented at the time of his arrest. No legal grounds were provided for his detention. He was never brought before a judge, and could not challenge the legality of his detention. The Committee also takes notes of the findings of the Commission underlining the illegality of the arrest and detention of Mr. Bolakhe when this occurred on the second occasion. In the absence of a response from the State party in this regard, the Committee considers that the detention of Mr. Bolakhe constitutes a violation of his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. 7.18 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the Committee notes the author’s allegation that, despite the fact that her husband was arrested and detained incommunicado by security forces on two occasions, the authorities systematically denied involvement in his enforced disappearance, including during the habeas corpus process before the Supreme Court. The State party failed to provide relevant information concerning Mr. Bolakhe’s fate and later the circumstances that led to his death. No effective investigation was carried out to ascertain his whereabouts before his remains were exhumed, 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. 37 The Committee, therefore, finds that the enforced disappearance of Mr. Bolakhe 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. 7.19 With regard to the author’s allegation under article 17, the Committee must first determine whether the specific circumstances of the search of the Bolakhe’s family’s house constitute a violation of article 17 of the Covenant. According to the author, the search was carried out without a warrant and the Army scolded the author and her children, who were present. The State party, on the other hand, did not provide any explanation in this regard to justify the Army’s actions. Consequently, the Committee concludes that there has been a violation of article 17 (1), insofar as there was unlawful interference in the home of the author and her family members who were present. 38 37 38 See Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.9; Tharu et al. v. Nepal, 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. See Rojas García v. Colombia, para. 10.3; Coronel v. Colombia, para. 9.7; and general comment No. 16. 15