CCPR/C/123/D/2658/2015 incommunicado detention on both occasions amounted in itself to a violation of article 7.14 She also claims that her husband was subjected to acts of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as supported by a witness’ testimony indicating that Mr. Bolakhe had told him that he had been severely beaten during interrogations. The author also contends that the overall conditions of detention at Gorakhnath Battalion Army camp (December 2002 to February 2003) amounted to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. 15 She argues that subjecting Mr. Bolakhe, before he was shot, to a four-day “search mission” amounted to ill-treatment in violation of articles 7 and 10. He was forced to walk long distances while in pain from the beatings that had been inflicted on him during interrogation, to carry heavy baggage and weapons and to witness soldiers beating other villagers, and had an unexploded bomb thrown in front of him. 3.4 The author claims that her husband was arrested on both occasions without a warrant and was never informed of the reasons for his arrest or the charges against him. He was held incommunicado without any opportunity to consult a lawyer or to contact friends or family, or to be brought before a judge. He could not challenge the lawfulness of his detention on his initiative. The Commission confirmed the illegality of the arrest and detention of Mr. Bolakhe. In the light of the above, the author argues that Mr. Bolakhe was arbitrarily deprived of his liberty in violation of article 9, 16 and that the State failed to provide compensation to his family in line with article 9 (5). 3.5 The author alleges that her husband was denied recognition as a person before the law on two separate occasions. First, when he was arrested on 1 May 2001 and denied access to the outside world until his family was able to ascertain his whereabouts on 14 July 2002, when he was transferred to a State prison. Second, on 27 December 2003, when State security forces abducted him and detained him until he was killed on 16 February 2004. Though his family persistently inquired at various institutions regarding his whereabouts, the State systematically denied having information regarding his detention. Even the writ petition of habeas corpus was quashed by the Supreme Court on the basis that the Malego Committee’s report maintained that Mr. Bolakhe had been released from detention. By producing false reports on Mr. Bolakhe’s detention, the State systematically misled the author and her family, and removed him from the protection of the law and other legal entitlements under the Covenant for a protracted period of time, which means he was denied recognition as a person. To this day, the Army has refused to provide any information regarding the detention or death of Mr. Bolakhe. The author therefore claims that the State party has violated article 16 of the Covenant. 3.6 The author submits that the State party’s systematic refusal to investigate Mr. Bolakhe’s disappearance and extrajudicial execution has ensured that no effective remedy has ever been provided for the aforementioned violations. As such, the State party has violated article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 3.7 The author argues that her and her family’s right to privacy under article 17 was violated by the Army’s illegal search without a warrant of her house on 20 December 2003. The author noted that the Army had searched the entire home and threatened her and members of her family who were present. The author referred to the Committee’s jurisprudence indicating that such arbitrary invasions of privacy and home violated article 17.17 The author stressed that entering homes with force along with physical and verbal abuse of the occupants had a significant impact upon the family life of those concerned. 14 15 16 17 The author refers to Bousroual v. Algeria (CCPR/C/86/D/992/2001); and Grioua v. Algeria (CCPR/C/90/D/1327/2004). The author refers to the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (1995) and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment. The author refers to Sharma v. Nepal (CCPR/C/94/D/1469/2006); and Sarma v. Sri Lanka (CCPR/C/78/D/950/2000). The author refers to Rojas García v. Colombia (CCPR/C/71/D/687/1996); Coronel et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/76/D/778/1997); and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 16 (1988) on the right to privacy. 7