CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s argument that her husband was subjected to an enforced disappearance after he was arrested again on 27 December 2003. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that there is no record of Mr. Bolakhe’s arrest or detention. 7.4 The Committee notes that it has dealt with numerous cases in respect of similar practices in a number of earlier communications, some of them involving the State party. 33 In line with these precedents, the Committee reiterates its position that the burden of proof cannot rest solely with the author of the communication, especially considering that the author and the State party do not always have equal access to evidence and that, frequently, the State party alone has access to the relevant information. It is implicit in article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol that the State party has the duty to investigate in good faith all allegations of violations of the Covenant made against it and its representatives, and to provide the Committee with the information available to it. In cases in which the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence and in which further clarification depends on information that is solely in the hands of the State party, the Committee may consider the author’s allegations substantiated, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party. 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s claim that her husband was arrested on 27 December 2003 without a warrant as supported by two testimonies. She further argued that he was held incommunicado in two different locations. The Committee observes that, despite the efforts made by the author and her family to locate Mr. Bolakhe, his whereabouts and fate remained unknown until the investigation of the Commission led to the identification of a burial site where his remains were exhumed more than two and a half years after his disappearance. The Committee observes that the authorities have denied their involvement in Mr. Bolakhe’s deprivation of liberty, and have persistently refused to disclose his fate or whereabouts, including in the context of habeas corpus, which led the Supreme Court to dismiss the case petition. The Committee also takes note of the Commission decision concluding that Mr. Bolakhe was arrested on 27 December 2003, and was detained incommunicado by the authorities. 7.6 In the light of the documentation submitted by the author, the Committee considers that the State party has not provided a sufficient and concrete explanation to refute the author’s allegations regarding her husband’s enforced disappearances, either during the period from 1 May 2001 until 14 July 2002, or during the period from 27 December 2003 until 5 July 2006. The Committee, therefore, considers that Mr. Bolakhe’s deprivation of liberty, followed by the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge it and conceal his fate, during both periods, constitutes an enforced disappearance. 7.7 The Committee recalls that, while the Covenant does not explicitly use the term “enforced disappearance” in any of its articles, enforced disappearance constitutes a unique and integrated series of acts that represent continuing violations of various rights recognized in the treaty.34 7.8 The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, deprivation of liberty followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty, or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, removes the person from the protection of the law and places his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable. 35 In the 33 34 35 See Sharma v. Nepal, para. 7.5; Sharma et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/122/D/2364/2014); Chaulagain v. Nepal; Tharu et al. v. Nepal; Basnet v. Nepal; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal; Dhakal et al. v. Nepal; Maya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/119/D/2245/2013); A.S. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/115/D/2077/2011); Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006); Sedhai et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/108/D/1865/2009); Maharjan et al. v. Nepal (CCPR/C/105/D/1863/2009); Tripathi and Tripathi v. Nepal (CCPR/C/112/D/2111/2011); and Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010). See Neupane and Neupane v. Nepal, para. 10.5; Katwal v. Nepal, para. 11.3; Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.5; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.5. See Abushaala et al. v. Libya (CCPR/C/107/D/1913/2009), para. 6.2; Basnet v. Nepal, para. 10.5; Nakarmi and Nakarmi v. Nepal, para. 11.6; and Dhakal et al. v. Nepal, para. 11.6. 13