CCPR/C/122/D/2265/2013 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 where the author has submitted allegations to the State party that are corroborated by credible evidence, and where further clarification depends on information that is in the hands of the State party alone, the Committee may, in the absence of satisfactory evidence or explanations to the contrary presented by the State party, consider the author’s allegations substantiated. 10.4 In the present case, the Committee notes the authors’ allegations that Mr. Sharma was arrested without a warrant on 21 October 2003, held incommunicado in the Bhairabnath Battalion barracks located in Maharajgunj and not brought before a judge or any other official authorized by law to exercise judicial power; nor could he take proceedings before a court to challenge the lawfulness of his detention until 15 December 2005, when the Supreme Court ruled that his detention was unlawful. The Committee observes that shortly after losing contact with her husband in October 2003, Ms. Sharma approached the Kathmandu District Police Office searching for him and that she filed a writ of habeas corpus on 29 October 2003. In this regard, the Committee observes that a report by OHCHR–Nepal names Mr. Sharma as one of the prisoners in detention from late November to mid-December 2003.20 The Committee also notes that in the context of the habeas corpus proceedings before the Supreme Court, all authorities denied that he had ever been detained by the police. Only on 8 March 2005 did the authorities, acknowledging that he had been detained since 14 February 2015, reveal Mr. Sharma’s whereabouts. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that Mr. Sharma was not arrested until 14 February 2005 and that he was provided with a detention order. However, the State party has produced no evidence of the whereabouts of Mr. Sharma prior to 14 February 2005 or of the detention order. The Committee is therefore considers that the deprivation of liberty of Mr. Sharma, followed by the authorities’ refusal to acknowledge it and the concealment of his fate, constituted an enforced disappearance. 10.5 The Committee notes 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 a continuing violation of various rights recognized in that treaty.21 10.6 The Committee recalls that, in cases of enforced disappearance, the act of deprivation of liberty, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate of the disappeared person, places the person outside the protection of the law and puts his or her life at serious and constant risk, for which the State is accountable.22 In the present case, the State party has produced no evidence to show that, from 21 October 2003 to 8 March 2005, it met its obligations to protect the life of Mr. Sharma. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect Mr. Sharma’s life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant.23 10.7 The Committee takes note of the authors’ allegations that the detention and subsequent enforced disappearance of Mr. Sharma 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 general comment No. 20 (1992) on the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Committee recommends that States parties make provisions to ban incommunicado detention. It notes that, in the present case, Mr. Sharma was held incommunicado between 21 October 2003 and 8 March 2005. It also notes the authors’ allegations that Mr. Sharma was tortured, in particular during the first 20 days of his detention in the Maharajgunj barracks, and that the authors provided photographic evidence of their claims. He suffered permanent physical damage. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation from the State 20 21 22 23 12 “Report of investigation into arbitrary detention, torture and disappearances at Maharajgunj RNA barracks, Kathmandu, in 2003–2004” (May 2006), p. 52. Katwal and Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), para. 11.3; and Serna et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/114/D/2134/2012), para. 9.4. Abushaala et al. v. Libya (CCPR/C/107/D/1913/2009), para. 6.2. Il Khwildy and Il Khwildy v. Libya (CCPR/C/106/D/1804/2008), para. 7.12.